P. 1
CREW: Funds for Favors Report: Exposing Donor's Influence on Committee Leaders (11/16/11)

CREW: Funds for Favors Report: Exposing Donor's Influence on Committee Leaders (11/16/11)

|Views: 4,532|Likes:
Published by CREW

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: CREW on Nov 15, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2015

pdf

text

original

Funds for Favors: Exposing Donors’ Influence on Committee Leaders

November 16, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………... 1 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….. 3 House Committee on Agriculture • • • Chairman: Frank Lucas (R-OK)…...……………………………………………… 4 Ranking Member: Collin Peterson (D-MN)…………………….………………… 6 Contribution and Voting Charts…………………………………………………… 8

House Committee on Armed Services • • • Chairman: Buck McKeon (R-CA)………………………………………………… 9 Ranking Member: Adam Smith (D-WA)…………………………………………. 11 Contribution and Voting Charts…………………………………………………… 13

House Committee on Education and the Workforce • • • Chairman: John Kline (R-MN)……………………………………………………. 14 Ranking Member: George Miller (D-CA)………………………………………… 16 Contribution and Voting Charts…………………………………………………… 18

House Committee on Energy and Commerce • • • Chairman: Fred Upton (R-MI)……………………………………………………... 19 Ranking Member: Henry Waxman (D-CA)……………………………………….. 21 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 23

House Committee on Financial Services • • • Chairman: Spencer Bachus (R-AL)………………………………………………... 24 Ranking Member: Barney Frank (D-MA)…………………………………………. 26 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 28

House Committee on Homeland Security • • • Chairman: Peter King (R-NY)……………………………………………………... 29 Ranking Member: Bennie Thompson (D-MS)…………………………………….. 31 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 33

House Committee on Judiciary • • • Chairman: Lamar Smith (R-TX)…………………………………………………… 34 Ranking Member: John Conyers (D-MI)…………………………………………... 36 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 38

House Committee on Natural Resources • Chairman: Doc Hastings (R-WA)………………………………………………….. 39 • Ranking Member: Edward Markey (D-MA)……………………………………… 41 Contribution and Voting Charts…………………………………………………… 43 House Committee on Science, Space and Technology • • • Chairman: Ralph Hall (R-TX)……………………………………………………... 44 Ranking Member: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)………………………………... 46 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 48

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure • • • Chairman: John Mica (R-FL)……………………………………………………….49 Ranking Member: Nick Rahall (D-WV)……………………………………………51 Contribution and Voting Charts……………………………………………………. 53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Heading a committee in the House of Representatives brings rewards beyond the chance to write important bills: an increase in campaign contributions from the same industries those committees are supposed to oversee. Research by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found as members grow in power and seniority, the industries they are responsible for regulating steer more and more money into their campaign coffers. Those members typically receive especially big jumps in industry donations during the election cycle immediately before assuming the chairmanship or ranking member position. CREW examined campaign contributions to the current chairmen and ranking members of 10 committees, analyzing them from the 1998 election cycle through the 2010 election cycle. Industry contributions to those members have skyrocketed during that period, increasing by nearly 600%, far more than the 230% increase in overall contributions to those members during the same period. During the 2010 election cycle, the industries examined by CREW donated more than $8.9 million to the chairmen and ranking members responsible for regulating them, making up 27% of the chairmen and ranking members’ total contributions. Those members had received just 13% of their campaign contributions from the same industry groups in the 1998 election cycle, when many were still relatively junior members of the committees they later rose to lead. With a few exceptions, CREW’s findings held true across industries, committees, and party affiliation, illustrating just how deeply the pay-to-play culture has penetrated the House of Representatives. For instance, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee has seen his donations from agriculture industries soar by 711% since 1998. That dwarfs the rate of growth of his total contributions, which grew by 274% over the same period. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has experienced a 620% increase in donations from the financial services industries since 1998. Overall, contributions to his campaign increased by 234%. Notably, Rep. Bachus earned nearly two-thirds of his total campaign contributions during the 2010 election cycle from industries regulated by his committee. CREW also found that since 2007, many committee leaders voted in agreement with the industries they regulate a majority of the time. In some cases, committee leaders voted

disproportionately in favor of industry positions compared to the average Democrat or Republican. CREW’s findings raise new questions about how beholden House committee chairmen and ranking members are to the industries they oversee, and whether they are independent enough to put public interest ahead of special interests.

2

METHODOLOGY CREW examined campaign contributions to standing House committee chairmen and ranking members from industries under the jurisdictions of their committees. CREW used the list of standing committees published by the House clerk’s office on May 9, 2011, as well as individual committee websites, to identify committee leaders. CREW used campaign contribution data tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which identifies and categorizes individual contributions based on industry. 1 CREW relied on CRP’s list of committee-related industries for the six committees it tracks: Agriculture, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Natural Resources, and Transportation and Infrastructure. For the committees CRP does not track, CREW relied on CRP’s industry definitions and matched those industries with the committees that regulate them as outlined by House Rule 10 of the Rules for the 112th Congress. These committees include: Education and the Workforce; Homeland Security; Judiciary; and Science, Space, and Technology. Campaign contribution data includes the total amount received by the member’s campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) for each election cycle from 1998-2010. In several cases, a member’s PAC was initially formed sometime during that period and CREW noted the date of formation. CREW used voting data provided by MapLight.org, which maintains records of how each member of Congress voted on every bill, and uses public records to categorize which interest groups, companies, and organizations support and oppose key bills in Congress. Congressional voting data is included for the 110th Congress, 111th Congress, and the 112th Congress through September 30, 2011.

1

Campaign finance data was collected from CRP’s database in summer 2011 and does not reflect subsequent amendments.

3

REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LUCAS (R-OK) Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture Joined committee: 1997 2 Assumed leadership: 2009 Elected to Congress: 1994 Formed PAC: 2010 Rep. Lucas’s contributions from agriculture industries increased as his seniority on the committee rose. During the 110th Congress, before entering leadership, Rep. Lucas voted disproportionately in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. The following election cycle, the industries drastically increased their contributions to Rep. Lucas. Over the past seven election cycles, contributions from agriculture industries to Rep. Lucas increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Agriculture Sector 1998 Election Cycle $70,451 $395,218 2010 Election Cycle $444,200 $1,088,725 % Change 531% 175%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Lucas assumed a leadership position in the committee – agriculture industries tripled their contributions to his campaign committee and PAC over the previous cycle, from $149,853 to $444,200. Total contributions doubled during the same time period, from $543,187 to $1,088,725. During the 2010 election cycle, agriculture industries accounted for 41% of the $1,088,725 in total contributions received by Rep. Lucas’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, agriculture industries accounted for 18% of the $395,218 in total contributions received by Rep. Lucas’ campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 3  The ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ industry donated more than seven times more money to Rep. Lucas during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $20,750 to $155,300.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 3 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

2

4

The ‘Agricultural Services/Products’ industry donated nearly six times more money to Rep. Lucas during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $20,250 to $118,750. The ‘Food Processing and Sales’ industry donated more than six times more money to Rep. Lucas during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,500 to $39,450.

Votes on Agriculture Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Lucas voted on average 77% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. In contrast, the average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 51% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Lucas voted on average 54% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 58% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Lucas has voted on average 93% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 87% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 4  Rep. Lucas cast 35 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 80% of the time. The average Republican cast 34 votes on ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 49% of the time. Rep. Lucas cast 23 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Agricultural Services/Products’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 78% of the time. The average Republican cast 22 votes on ‘Agricultural Services/Products’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 55% of the time. Rep. Lucas cast 14 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Food Processing and Sales’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 71% of the time. The average Republican cast 14 votes on ‘Food Processing and Sales’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 59% of the time.

4

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

5

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIN PETERSON (D-MN) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Agriculture Joined committee: 1997 5 Assumed Leadership: 2005 Elected to Congress: 1990 Formed PAC: 2007 Rep. Peterson served as ranking member of the committee from 2005-2006 and served as chairman from 2007-2010. During the 111th and 112th Congresses, Rep. Peterson voted disproportionately in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee compared to the average Democrat. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from agriculture industries to Rep. Peterson increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Agriculture Sector 1998 Election Cycle $80,150 $369,310 2010 Election Cycle $650,412 $1,380,382 % Change 711% 274%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2006 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Peterson assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from agriculture industries to Rep. Peterson’s campaign committee increased by 292% over the previous election cycle, from $98,996 to $388,186. Total contributions increased by 122% during the same time period, from $422,906 to $938,128. During the 2010 election cycle, agriculture industries accounted for 47% of the $1,380,382 in total contributions received by Rep. Peterson’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, agriculture industries accounted for 22% of the $369,310 in total contributions received by Rep. Peterson’ campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 6  The ‘Agriculture Services/Products’ industry donated nearly 12 times more money to Rep. Peterson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $15,250 to $179,299.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 6 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

5

6

The ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ industry donated nearly 16 times more money to Rep. Peterson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $14,650 to $234,082. The ‘Dairy’ industry donated nearly four times more money to Rep. Peterson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $18,000 to $67,000.

Votes on Agriculture Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Peterson voted on average 70% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 70% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Peterson voted on average 54% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. In contrast, the average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 40% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Peterson has voted on average 72% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Agriculture Committee. In contrast, the average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 27% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 7  Rep. Peterson cast only six votes on issues relevant to the ‘Dairy’ industry from 2009-2010. He voted in agreement with the industry 50% of the time. The average Democrat cast six votes on ‘Dairy’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 23% of the time. Rep. Peterson has cast 20 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Agriculture Services/Products’ industry since January 2011. He has so far voted in agreement with the industry 85% of the time. The average Democrat has cast 20 votes on ‘Agriculture Services/Products’ issues and has voted in agreement with the industry 32% of the time. Rep. Peterson has cast 15 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ industry since January 2011. He has so far voted in agreement with the industry 87% of the time. The average Democrat has cast 15 votes on ‘Crop Production and Basic Processing’ issues and has voted in agreement with the industry 33% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member.

7

7

House Committee on Agriculture
Contributions 1998-2010
$1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Lucas Industry Rep. Peterson Industry Rep. Lucas Total Rep. Peterson Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) Member Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) Member Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

8

REPRESENTATIVE BUCK MCKEON (R-CA) Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services Joined committee: 1997 8 Assumed leadership: 2009 Elected to Congress: 1992 Formed PAC: 1996 Prior to assuming the chairmanship, Rep. McKeon served as ranking member of the committee from 2009 to 2010. That election cycle, armed services industries drastically increased their contributions to Rep. McKeon. Additionally, during the 111th and 112th Congresses, he has voted favorably with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from armed services industries increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Armed Services Sector 1998 Election Cycle $40,000 $511,714 2010 Election Cycle $469,900 $2,026,660 % Change 1075% 296%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. McKeon assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from armed services industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 444% over the previous cycle, from $86,450 to $469,900. In contrast, total contributions increased by only 3% during the same time period, from $1,961,134 to $2,026,660. During the 2010 election cycle, armed services industries accounted for 23% of the $2,026,660 in total contributions received by Rep. McKeon’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, armed services industries accounted for 8% of the $511,714 in total contributions received by Rep. McKeon’s campaign committee and PAC.

8

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier.

9

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 9

The ‘Defense Aerospace’ industry donated more than seven times more money to Rep. McKeon during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $29,000 to $217,000. The ‘Defense Electronics’ industry donated nearly ten times more money to Rep. McKeon during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $11,000 to $107,500. The ‘Misc Defense’ industry donated more than 32 times more money to Rep. McKeon during the 2010 election cycle than during the 2000 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $4,500 to $145,400. 10

Votes on Armed Services Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. McKeon voted on average 25% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industry 26% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. McKeon voted on average 67% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. In contrast, the average Republican voted in agreement with the industry 55% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. McKeon has voted on average 100% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industry 88% of the time.

Voting history for specific industries regulated by the Committee 11

Rep. McKeon cast nine votes on issues relevant to the ‘Foreign & Defense Policy’ industry from 2009-2010. He voted in agreement with the industry 67% of the time. The average Republican cast nine votes on ‘Foreign & Defense Policy’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 55% of the time.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles. 10 Misc. Defense did not make any contributions in the 1998 election cycle. 11 This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member.

9

10

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SMITH (D-WA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Armed Services Joined committee: 1997 12 Assumed leadership: 2011 Elected to Congress: 1996 Formed PAC: 2010 13 Over the past seven election cycles, as Rep. Smith’s seniority on the committee rose, contributions from armed services industries increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Additionally, thus far in the 112th Congress, Rep. Smith has voted disproportionately in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee compared to the average Democrat. Campaign Contributions from the Armed Services Sector 1998 Election Cycle $6,650 $803,358 2010 Election Cycle $98,250 $948,533 % Change 1377% 18%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the election cycle prior to Rep. Smith’s first term in a leadership position on the committee – contributions from armed services industries to his campaign committee increased by 267% over the previous cycle, from $26,750 to $98,250. In contrast, total contributions increased by 46% during the same time period, from $648,477 to $948,533. 14 During the 2010 election cycle, armed services industries accounted for 10% of the $948,533 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’ campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, armed services industries accounted for 1% of the $803,358 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 13 The PAC’s first activity was reported in December 2010. 14 Full campaign contribution data is not yet available for the 2012 election, the first election cycle after Rep. Smith assumed a leadership position in the committee.

12

11

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 15  The ‘Defense Aerospace’ industry donated more than eight times more money to Rep. Smith during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,650 to $55,000. The ‘Defense Electronics’ industry doubled its donations to Rep. Smith between the 2002 and 2010 election cycles, increasing its contributions from $10,500 to $34,500. 16 The ‘Misc Defense’ industry nearly doubled its donations to Rep. Smith between the 2000 and 2010 election cycles, increasing its contributions from $5,000 to $8,750. 17


Votes on Armed Services Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Smith voted on average 75% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 71% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Smith voted on average 33% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 52% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Smith has voted on average 75% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee. In contrast, the average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 52% of the time.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles. 16 The ‘Defense Electronics’ indsutry did not make any contributions to Rep. Smith during the 1998 or 2000 election cycles. 17 The ‘Misc Defense’ industry did not make any contributions to Rep. Smith during the 1998 election cycle.

15

12

House Committee on Armed Services
Contributions 1998-2010
$2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. McKeon Industry Rep. Smith Industry Rep. McKeon Total Rep. Smith Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

13

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KLINE (R-MN) Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Joined committee: 2003 Assumed leadership: 2009 Elected to Congress: 2002 Formed PAC: 2007 Rep. Kline served as ranking member of the committee from 2009 to 2010. That election cycle, Rep. Kline’s contributions from education and workforce industries rose dramatically. Over the past five election cycles, as Rep. Kline’s seniority on the committee rose, contributions from the education and workforce industries increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Rep. Kline’s voting history, however, does not reflect the industries’ largess. Campaign Contributions from the Education and Workforce Sector 2002 Election Cycle $17,950 $1,553,130 2010 Election Cycle $119,600 $1,842,689 % Change 566% 19%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Kline assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from education and workforce industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 232% over the previous cycle, from $36,000 to $119,600. In contrast, total contributions increased by 12% during the same time period, from $1,638,891 to $1,842,689. During the 2010 election cycle, education and workforce industries accounted for 6% of the $1,842,689 in total contributions received by Rep. Kline’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 2002 election cycle, education and workforce industries accounted for 1% of the $1,553,130 in total contributions received by Rep. Kline’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 18  The ‘Education’ industry donated more than 10 times more money to Rep. Kline during the 2010 election cycle than during the 2002 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $7,250 to $76,700. The ‘Health Professionals’ industry donated nearly three times more money to Rep. Kline during the 2010 election cycle than during the 2002 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $10,700 to $32,900.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

18

14

Votes on Education and Workforce Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Kline voted on average 56% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 55% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Kline voted on average 34% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 38% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Kline has voted on average 24% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 26% of the time.

15

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE MILLER (D-CA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Joined committee: 1997 19 Assumed leadership: 2001 Elected to Congress: 1974 Formed PAC: 2000 Rep. Miller served as ranking member of the committee from 2001 to 2006 and served as chairman from 2007 to 2010. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from education and workforce industries to Rep. Miller increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Rep. Miller’s voting history, however, does not reflect the industries’ largess. Campaign Contributions from the Education and Workforce Sector 1998 Election Cycle $63,551 $346,025 2010 Election Cycle $457,946 $1,527,308 % Change 621% 341%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2002 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Miller assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from education and workforce industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 38% over the previous cycle, from $145,150 in 2000 to $199,863 in 2002. Total contributions increased by 65% during the same time period, from $417,748 to $687,741. During the 2010 election cycle, education and workforce industries accounted for 30% of the $1,527,308 in total contributions received by Rep. Miller’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, education and workforce industries accounted for 18% of the $346,025 in total contributions received by Rep. Miller’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 20  The ‘Education’ industry donated more than 90 times more money to Rep. Miller during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $1,500 to $135,461.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 20 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

19

16

The ‘Health Professionals’ industry donated more than five times more money to Rep. Miller during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $11,501 to $59,500. The ‘Building Trade Unions’ donated nearly six times more money to Rep. Miller during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $18,000 to $107,650.

Votes on Education and Workforce Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Miller voted on average 88% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 91% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Miller voted on average 82% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 81% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Miller has voted on average 77% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Education and Workforce Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 79% of the time.

17

House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Contributions 1998-2010
$2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Kline Industry Rep. Miller Industry Rep. Kline Total Rep. Miller Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

John Kline (R-MN) Member George Miller (D-CA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

John Kline (R-MN) Member George Miller (D-CA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

18

REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON (R-MI) Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Joined committee: 1997 21 Assumed leadership: 2011 Elected to Congress: 1986 Formed PAC: 1997 Over the past seven election cycles, as Rep. Upton’s seniority on the committee rose, contributions from energy and commerce industries increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Moreover, after championing the industries’ causes in the 110th Congress, energy and commerce industries drastically increased their donations to Rep. Upton during the following election cycle. Following the Republican takeover of the House and increased campaign contributions from the industries, Rep. Upton assumed the chairmanship for the 112th Congress. Campaign Contributions from the Energy and Commerce Sector 1998 Election Cycle $198,963 $658,332 2010 Election Cycle $1,290,002 $2,482,921 % Change 548% 277%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the election cycle prior to Rep. Upton’s first term in a leadership position on the committee – contributions from energy and commerce industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 80% over the previous cycle, from $717,210 to $1,290,002. In contrast, total contributions increased by 47% during the same time period, from $1,685,196 to $2,482,921. 22 During the 2010 election cycle, energy and commerce industries accounted for 52% of the $2,482,921 in total contributions received by Rep. Upton’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, energy and commerce industries accounted for just 30% of the $658,332 in total contributions received by Rep. Upton’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 23

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 22 Full campaign contribution data is not yet available for the 2012 election cycle, the first election cycle after Rep. Upton assumed a leadership position in the committee. 23 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

21

19

The ‘Pharmaceuticals/Health Products’ industry donated nearly five times more money to Rep. Upton during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $35,525 to $177,100. The ‘Oil and Gas’ industry donated more than 15 times more money to Rep. Upton during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from to $8,500 to $127,950. The ‘Electric Utilities’ industry donated more than nine times more money to Rep. Upton during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $28,000 to $260,600.

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Upton voted on average 81% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. In contrast, the average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 59% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Upton voted on average 62% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 54% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Upton has voted on average 75% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 71% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 24  Rep. Upton cast 19 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Pharmaceuticals/Health Products’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 79% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 19 votes on ‘Pharmaceuticals/Health Products’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 51% of the time. Rep. Upton cast 25 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Oil and Gas’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 88% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 24 votes on ‘Oil and Gas’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 72% of the time. Rep. Upton cast ten votes on issues relevant to the ‘Electrical Utilities’ industry from 20072008. He voted in agreement with the industry 60% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast ten votes on ‘Electrical Utilities’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 29% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

24

20

REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Joined committee: 1997 25 Assumed leadership: 2009 Elected to Congress: 1974 Formed PAC: 1993 Rep. Waxman served as chairman of the committee from 2009 to 2010. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions to Rep. Waxman from the energy and commerce industries drastically increased. Rep. Waxman’s voting history, however, does not reflect the industries’ largess. Campaign Contributions from the Energy and Commerce Sector 1998 Election Cycle $81,050 $162,315 2010 Election Cycle $935,921 $1,948,295 % Change 1055% 1100%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Waxman assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from energy and commerce industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 123% over the previous cycle, from $419,301 to $935,921. In contrast, total contributions increased by 55% during the same period, from $1,256,769 to $1,948,295. During the 2010 election cycle, energy and commerce industries accounted for 48% of the $1,948,295 in total contributions received by Rep. Waxman’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, energy and commerce industries accounted for 50% of the $162,315 in total contributions received by Rep. Waxman’s campaign committee and PAC.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 26  The ‘TV/Movies/Music’ industry donated nearly 22 times more money to Rep. Waxman during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $10,250 to $223,671.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 26 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

25

21

The ‘Health Services/HMOs’ industry donated more than 40 times more money to Rep. Waxman during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $3,050 to $122,850. The ‘Health Professionals’ industry donated more than five times more money to Rep. Waxman during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $36,750 to $186,100. The ‘Pharmaceuticals/Health Products’ industry donated more than seven times more money to Rep. Waxman during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $10,500 to $73,900.

Votes on Energy and Commerce Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Waxman voted 65% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 70% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Waxman voted 67% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 65% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Waxman has voted 24% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 36% of the time.

22

House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Contributions 1998-2010
$3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Upton Industry Rep. Waxman Industry Rep. Upton Total Rep. Waxman Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Fred Upton (R-MI) Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Fred Upton (R-MI) Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

23

REPRESENTATIVE SPENCER BACHUS (R-AL) Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services Joined committee: 1997 27 Assumed leadership: 2007 Elected to Congress: 1992 Formed PAC: 2003 Rep. Bachus served as ranking member of the committee from 2007 to 2010. During Rep. Bachus’ first term in a leadership position, contributions from financial services industries increased, even as his total contributions decreased. During his terms as a committee leader, Rep. Bachus has voted favorably with the industries a majority of the time. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from the financial services industries to Rep. Bachus increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Financial Services Sector 1998 Election Cycle $192,685 $648,464 2010 Election Cycle $1,387,900 $2,162,852 % Change 620% 234%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2008 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Bachus assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from financial services industries increased by 7% over the previous cycle, from $1,453,148 to $1,556,025. Total contributions decreased by 11% during the same time period, from $2,652,093 to $2,349,786. During the 2010 election cycle, financial services industries accounted for 64% of the $2,162,852 in total contributions received by Rep. Bachus’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, financial services industries accounted for 30% of the $648,464 in total contributions received by Rep. Bachus’ campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 28  The ‘Securities & Investment’ industry donated more than 26 times more money to Rep. Bachus during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $10,500 to $278,600.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 28 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

27

24

The ‘Finance/Credit Companies’ industry donated more than six times more money to Rep. Bachus during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $16,500 to $104,250. The ‘Commercial Banks’ industry donated nearly three times more money to Rep. Bachus during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $74,150 to $206,800.

Votes on Financial Services Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Bachus voted on average 56% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 51% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Bachus voted on average 61% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 58% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Bachus has voted on average 87% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 77% of the time

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 29  Rep. Bachus cast 14 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Securities & Investment’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 64% of the time. In contrast, he average Republican cast 14 votes on ‘Securities & Investment’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 53% of the time. Rep. Bachus cast 11 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Finance/Credit Companies’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 64% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 11 votes on ‘Finance/Credit Companies’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 46% of the time. Rep. Bachus cast 20 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Commercial Banks’ industry from 20072008. He voted in agreement with the industry 70% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 19 votes on ‘Commercial Banks’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 52% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

29

25

REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Financial Services Joined committee: 1997 30 Assumed leadership: 2003 Elected to Congress: 1980 Formed PAC: None Rep. Frank served as ranking member of the committee from 2003 to 2006 and served as chairman from 2007 to 2010. Rep. Frank’s contributions from financial services industries drastically increased in his first term in a leadership position on the committee. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from financial services industries to Rep. Frank increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Rep. Frank’s recent voting history, however, does not reflect the industries’ largess. Campaign Contributions from the Financial Services Sector 1998 Election Cycle $41,800 $278,700 2010 Election Cycle $1,132,915 $4,052,944 % Change 2610% 1354%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2004 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Frank assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from financial services industries to his campaign committee increased by 537% over the previous cycle, from $70,900 to $451,339. In contrast, total contributions increased by 205% during the same time period, from $432,544 to $1,319,498. During the 2010 election cycle, financial services industries accounted for 28% of the $4,052,944 in total contributions received by Rep. Frank’s campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, financial services industries accounted for 15% of the $278,700 in total contributions received by Rep. Frank’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 31  The ‘Securities and Investments’ industry donated nearly 102 times more money to Rep. Frank during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $3,500 to $356,316.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 31 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

30

26

The ‘Insurance’ industry donated more than 54 times more money to Rep. Frank during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $5,200 to $282,649. The ‘Accountants’ industry donated nearly 17 times more money to Rep. Frank during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $3,250 to $55,000. The ‘Real Estate’ industry donated nearly 15 times more money to Rep. Frank during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $17,600 to $257,650.

Votes on Financial Services Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Frank voted 69% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 67% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Frank voted 38% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 39% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Frank has voted 32% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Financial Services Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industry 34% of the time.

27

House Committee on Financial Services
Contributions 1998-2010
$4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Bachus Industry Rep. Frank Industry Rep. Bachus Total Rep. Frank Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Member Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Member Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

28

REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING (R-NY) Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security Joined committee: 2003 Assumed leadership: 2005 Elected to Congress: 1992 Formed PAC: 2006 - 2008 Rep. King served as chairman of the committee from 2005 to 2006, during which time he saw a drastic increase in contributions to his campaign and leadership PAC from homeland security industries. Rep. King also served as ranking member from 2007 to 2010. During his time as ranking member, Rep. King voted disproportionately in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. Over the past seven election cycles, as Rep. King joined the committee and rose in seniority, contributions from homeland security industries to Rep. King nearly tripled. Campaign Contributions from the Homeland Security Sector 1998 Election Cycle $79,420 $551,910 2010 Election Cycle $214,600 $1,713,817 % Change 170% 211%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2006 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. King assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from homeland security industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 434% over the previous cycle, from $34,150 to $182,449. In contrast, total contributions increased by 151% during the same time period, from $610,412 to $1,530,735. During the 2010 election cycle, homeland security industries accounted for 13% of the $1,713,817 in total contributions received by Rep. King’s campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, homeland security industries accounted for 14% of the $551,910 in total contributions received by Rep. King’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 32  The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated 47 times more money to Rep. King during the 2010 election cycle than during the1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $500 to $23,500.

32

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

29

The ‘General Contractors’ industry donated more than 10 times more money to Rep. King during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $3,050 to $30,850. The ‘Defense Aerospace’ industry donated more than five times more money to Rep. King during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,500 to $33,000.

Votes on Homeland Security Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. King voted on average 59% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. In contrast, the average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 47% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. King voted on average 47% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. In contrast, the average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 34% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. King has voted on average 53% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 55% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 33

Rep. King cast 23 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Transportation Unions’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 70% of the time. The average Republican cast 22 votes on ‘Transportation Unions’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 57% of the time. Rep. King cast six votes on issues relevant to the ‘Air Transport’ industry from 2009-2010. He voted in agreement with the industry 50% of the time. The average Republican cast six votes on ‘Air Transport’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 25% of the time. Rep. King cast 23 votes on issues relevant to the ‘General Contractors’ industry from 20092010. He voted in agreement with the industry 65% of the time. The average Republican cast 22 votes on ‘General Contractors’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 52% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

33

30

REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Homeland Security Joined committee: 2003 Assumed leadership: 2005 Elected to Congress: 1993 Formed PAC: 2005 Rep. Thompson served as ranking member of the committee from 2005 to 2006, during which time he saw a drastic increase in contributions to his campaign and leadership PAC from homeland security industries. Rep. Thompson also served as chairman from 2007 to 2010. During his time as chairman, Rep. Thompson voted favorably with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. Over the past seven election cycles, as Rep. Thompson joined the committee and rose in seniority, contributions from homeland security industries to Rep. Thompson increased at a rate outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Homeland Security Sector 1998 Election Cycle $64,750 $371,402 2010 Election Cycle $406,650 $2,034,456 % Change 528% 448%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2006 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Thompson assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from homeland security industries to his campaign committee and PAC increased by 186% over the previous cycle, from $97,980 to $279,811. In contrast, total contributions increased by 91% during the same time period, from $756,391 to $1,447,973. During the 2010 election cycle, homeland security industries accounted for 20% of the $2,034,456 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompson’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, homeland security industries accounted for 17% of the $371,402 in total contributions received by Rep. Thompson’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 34  The ‘Transportation Unions’ industry donated nearly four times more money to Rep. Thompson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $29,500 to $117,000.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

34

31

The ‘Defense Aerospace’ industry donated nearly 32 times more money to Rep. Thompson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $1,500 to $47,900. The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated 10 times more money to Rep. Thompson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $5,000 to $50,000.

Votes on Homeland Security Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Thompson voted on average 91% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 85% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Thompson voted on average 76% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 69% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Thompson has voted on average 53% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Homeland Security Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 52% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 35  Rep. Thompson cast 23 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Transportation Unions’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 100% of the time. The average Democrat cast 22 votes on ‘Transportation Unions’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 91% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

35

32

House Committee on Homeland Security
Contributions 1998-2010
$2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. King Industry Rep. Thompson Industry Rep. King Total Rep. Thompson Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

33

REPRESENTATIVE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX) Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary Joined committee: 1997 36 Assumed leadership: 2007 Elected to Congress: 1986 Formed PAC: 2004 Rep. Smith served as ranking member of the committee from 2007 to 2010 before assuming the chairmanship in 2011. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from judiciary industries to Rep. Smith increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Judiciary Sector 1998 Election Cycle $20,350 $512,975 2010 Election Cycle $120,950 $1,673,879 % Change 494% 226%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During the 2008 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Smith assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from judiciary industries decreased by 32% from the previous cycle, from $201,339 to $137,700. Total contributions decreased by 16% during the same time period, from $1,919,251 to $1,616,990. During the 2006 election cycle, contributions from judiciary industries increased by 125% over the previous cycle, from $89,419 to $201,339. Total contributions increased by 81% during the same time period, from $1,060,030 to $1,919, 251. During the 2010 election cycle, contributions from judiciary industries accounted for 7% of the $1,673,879 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, judiciary industries accounted for 4% of the $512,975 in total contributions received by Rep. Smith’s campaign committee.

36

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier.

34

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 37  The ‘Commercial Banks’ industry donated nearly nine times more money to Rep. Smith during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,850 to $59,550. The ‘Lawyers/Law Firms’ industry donated more than four times more money to Rep. Smith during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $13,500 to $61,400.

Votes on Judiciary Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Smith voted on average 51% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 48% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Smith voted on average 57% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 52% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Smith has voted on average 71% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 59% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 38  Rep. Smith cast 20 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Commercial Banks’ industry from 20072008. He voted in agreement with the industry 65% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 19 votes on ‘Commercial Banks’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 52% of the time.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles. 38 This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

37

35

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS JR. (D-MI) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Judiciary Joined committee: 1997 39 Assumed leadership: 1997 Elected to Congress: 1964 Formed PAC: 2004 Rep. Conyers served as ranking member of the committee from 1997 to 2006 and served as chairman from 2007 to 2010. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from judiciary industries to Rep. Conyers increased at a rate outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Judiciary Sector 1998 Election Cycle $21,250 $216,960 2010 Election Cycle $147,602 $1,340,120 % Change 595% 518%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2000 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Conyers assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from judiciary industries increased by 210% over the previous cycle, from $21,250 to $65,850. Total contributions increased by 165% during the same time period, from $216,960 to $574,559. During the 2010 election cycle, judiciary industries accounted for 11% of the $1,340,120 in total contributions received by Rep. Conyers’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, judiciary industries accounted for 10% of the $216,960 in total contributions received by Rep. Conyers’ campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 40  The ‘Lawyers/Law Firms’ industry donated more than seven times more money to Rep. Conyers during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $20,250 to $147,602.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 40 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

39

36

Votes on Judiciary Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Conyers voted on average 71% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industry 71% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Conyers voted on average 43% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industry 54% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Conyers has voted on average 29% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Judiciary Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industry 54% of the time.

37

House Committee on Judiciary
Contributions 1998-2010
$2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Smith Industry Rep. Conyers Industry Rep. Smith Total Rep. Conyers Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) Member Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) Member Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

38

REPRESENTATIVE DOC HASTINGS (R-WA) Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources Joined committee: 2009 Assumed leadership: 2009 Elected to Congress: 1994 Formed PAC: None During the 110th Congress, prior to joining the committee, Rep. Hastings voted favorably with natural resources industries a majority of the time. The following election cycle when Rep. Hastings became ranking member, contributions from natural resources industries increased drastically. Over the past seven election cycles, as Rep. Hastings joined the committee and rose in seniority, contributions from natural resources industries increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Natural Resources Sector 1998 Election Cycle $22,977 $1,186,268 2010 Election Cycle $152,026 $1,056,576 % Change 562% -11%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Hastings assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from natural resources industries increased by 378% over the previous cycle, from $31,800 to $152,026. In contrast, total contributions increased by 72% during the same time period, from $615,270 to $1,056,576. During the 2010 election cycle, natural resources industries accounted for 14% of the $1,056,576 in total contributions received by Rep. Hastings’ campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, natural resources industries accounted for 2% of the $1,186,268 in total contributions received by Rep. Hastings’ campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 41  The ‘Oil and Gas’ industry donated more than 11 times more money to Rep. Hastings during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $8,000 to $91,671. The ‘Fisheries and Wildlife’ industry donated more than eight times more money to Rep. Hastings during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $2,000 to $16,680.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

41

39

Votes on Natural Resources Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Hastings voted on average 63% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resources Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 55% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Hastings voted on average 52% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resources Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 50% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Hastings has voted on average 41% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resources Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 60% of the time.

Voting history for specific industries regulated by the Committee 42  Rep. Hastings cast eight votes on issues relevant to the ‘Mining’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 100% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast eight votes on ‘Mining’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 85% of the time. Rep. Hastings cast 25 votes on issues relevant to the ‘Oil and Gas’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 84% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast 24 votes on ‘Oil and Gas’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 72% of the time. Rep. Hastings cast seven votes on issues relevant to the ‘Fisheries and Wildlife’ industry from 2007-2008. He voted in agreement with the industry 71% of the time. In contrast, the average Republican cast seven votes on ‘Fisheries and Wildlife’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 44% of the time.

This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member. In some instances, committee leaders voted more often on issues relevant to their industry than the average party member.

42

40

REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Natural Resources Joined committee: 1997 43 Assumed leadership: 2011 Elected to Congress: 1976 Formed PAC: None Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from natural resources industries to Rep. Markey have increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Rep. Markey’s voting history, however, does not reflect the industries’ largess. Campaign Contributions from the Natural Resources Sector 1998 Election Cycle $1,800 $455,311 2010 Election Cycle $47,400 $1,535,340 % Change 2533% 237%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the election cycle prior to Rep. Markey’s first term in a leadership position on the committee – contributions from natural resources industries to his campaign committee increased by 82% over the previous cycle, from $26,030 to $47,400. In contrast, total contributions increased by 6% during the same time period, from $1,454,661 to $1,535,340. 44 During the 2010 election cycle, natural resources industries accounted for 3% of the $1,535,340 in total contributions received by Rep. Markey’s campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, natural resources industries accounted for less than 1% of the $455,311 in total contributions received by Rep. Markey’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 45  The ‘Oil & Gas’ industry donated more than 19 times more money to Rep. Markey during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $1,800 to $34,250.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 44 Full campaign contribution data is not yet available for the 2012 election, the first election cycle after Rep. Markey assumed a leadership position in the committee. 45 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

43

41

Votes on Natural Resources Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Markey voted 53% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resource Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 52% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Markey voted 56% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resource Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 54% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Markey has voted 38% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Natural Resource Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 43% of the time.

42

House Committee on Natural Resources
Contributions 1998-2010
$3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Hastings Industry Rep. Markey Industry Rep. Hastings Total Rep. Markey Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Doc Hastings (R-WA) Member Edward Markey (D-MA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Doc Hastings (R-WA) Member Edward Markey (D-MA) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

43

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH HALL (R-TX) Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Joined committee: 1997 46 Assumed leadership: 1999 Elected to Congress: 1980 Formed PAC: None Rep. Hall served as ranking member of the committee from 1999 to 2002 as a Democrat and again from 2007 to 2010 as a Republican. 47 Over the past seven election cycles, Rep. Hall’s contributions from committee related industries have decreased, though at a slower pace than his overall total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Science, Space, and Technology Sector 1998 Election Cycle $117,915 $1,263,590 2010 Election Cycle $105,208 $664,579 % Change -11% -47%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2000 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Hall assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from science, space, and technology industries to his campaign committee increased by 41% over the previous cycle, from $117,915 to $166,472. Total contributions decreased by 42% during the same time period, from $1,263,590 to $732,869. During the 2010 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries accounted for 16% of the $664,579 in total contributions received by Rep. Hall’s campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries accounted for 9% of the $1,263,590 in total contributions received by Rep. Hall’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 48  The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated nearly six times more money to Rep. Hall during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $4,900 to $27,899.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 47 Rep. Hall was a Democrat from 1950-2004. 48 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

46

44

The ‘Defense Aerospace’ donated nearly four times more money to Rep. Hall during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $4,500 to $17,500.

Votes on Science, Space, and Technology Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Hall voted on average 62% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 59% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Hall voted on average 59% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industries 56% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Hall has voted on average 84% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industries 92% of the time.

45

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Joined committee: 1997 49 Assumed leadership: 2011 Elected to Congress: 1992 Formed PAC: 2000-2003 Over the past seven elections cycles, as her seniority on the committee rose, contributions from science, space and technology industries to Rep. Johnson increased, though at a slower rate than her total contributions. Thus far during the 112th Congress, Rep. Johnson has voted disproportionately in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee compared to the average Democrat. Campaign Contributions from the Science, Space, and Technology Sector 1998 Election Cycle $31,500 $310,732 2010 Election Cycle $40,886 $613,624 % Change 30% 97%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

 

During the 2010 election cycle – the election cycle prior to Rep. Johnson’s first term in a leadership position on the committee – contributions from science, space, and technology industries to her campaign committee decreased by 4% from the previous cycle, from $42,750 to $40,886. Total contributions increased by 16% during the same time period, from $527,856 to $613,624. 50 During the 2010 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries accounted for 7% of the $613,624 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnson’s campaign committee. During the 1998 election cycle, science, space, and technology industries accounted for 10% of the $310,732 in total contributions received by Rep. Johnson’s campaign committee.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 50 Full campaign contribution data is not yet available for the 2012 election, the first election cycle after Rep. Johnson assumed a leadership position in the committee.

49

46

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 51  The ‘Electric Utilities’ industry donated 43% more money to Rep. Johnson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $7,500 to $10,748. The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated 17% more money to Rep. Johnson during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $21,500 to $25,138.

Votes on Science, Space, and Technology Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Johnson voted on average 34% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 36% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Johnson voted on average 41% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industries 44% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Johnson has voted on average 44% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industries 15% of the time.

Voting history for industries regulated by the Committee 52  Rep. Johnson has cast 28 votes on issues relevant the ‘Oil and Gas’ industry since January 2011. She has so far voted in agreement with the industry 68% of the time. The average Democrat has cast 28 votes on ‘Oil and Gas’ issues and voted in agreement with the industry 16% of the time.

This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles. 52 This section highlights instances during the 110th-112th Congresses when the committee leader voted more favorably on industry issues than the average party member.

51

47

House Committee on Space, Science and Technology
Contributions 1998-2010
$1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Hall Industry Rep. Johnson Industry Rep. Hall Total Rep. Johnson Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Ralph Hall (R-TX) Member Eddie B. Johnson (D-TX) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

Ralph Hall (R-TX) Member Eddie B. Johnson (D-TX) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

48

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MICA (R-FL) Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Joined committee: 1997 53 Assumed leadership: 2007 Elected to Congress: 1992 Formed PAC: 2004 Rep. Mica served as ranking member of the committee from 2007 to 2010. Since becoming chairman, Rep. Mica has voted favorably with transportation and infrastructure industries. Over the past seven election cycles, as his seniority on the committee rose, contributions from transportation and infrastructure industries to Rep. Mica increased at a rate far outpacing his total contributions. Campaign Contributions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Sector 1998 Election Cycle $50,846 $278,885 2010 Election Cycle $531,384 $1,344,585 % Change 945% 382%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During 2008 election cycle – the first election cycle after Rep. Mica assumed a leadership position on the committee – contributions from transportation and infrastructure industries increased by 38% over the previous cycle, from $322,148 to $445,750. Total contributions increased by 25% during the same time period, from $1,047,850 to $1,305,650. During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries accounted for 40% of the $1,344,585 in total contributions received by Rep. Mica’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries accounted for 18% of the $ 278,885 in total contributions received by Rep. Mica’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 54  The ‘Construction Services’ industry donated more than 62 times more money to Rep. Mica during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $1,500 to $93,318.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 54 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

53

49

The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated more than 15 times more money to Rep. Mica during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $11,200 to $170,666. The ‘General Contractors’ industry donated more than 10 times more money to Rep. Mica during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,250 to $65,500.

Votes on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Mica voted on average 44% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industry 54% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Mica voted on average 43% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Republican voted in agreement with the industry 43% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Mica has voted on average 80% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Republican has voted in agreement with the industry 74% of the time.

50

REPRESENTATIVE NICK RAHALL II (D-WV) Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Joined committee: 1997 55 Assumed leadership: 2011 Elected to Congress: 1976 Formed PAC: 2005 Prior to becoming ranking member, Rep. Rahall voted favorably with the transportation and infrastructure industries a majority of the time. Over the past seven election cycles, the industries have more than doubled their contributions to Rep. Rahall. Campaign Contributions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Sector 1998 Election Cycle $114,100 $534,405 2010 Election Cycle $236,400 $1,280,682 % Change 107% 140%

Industry Contributions Total Contributions 

During 2010 election cycle – the election cycle prior to Rep. Rahall’s first term in a leadership position in the committee – contributions from transportation and infrastructure industries increased by 16% over the previous cycle, from $204,550 to $236,400. Total contributions increased by 46% during the same time period, from $877,387 to $1,280,682. 56 During the 2010 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries accounted for 18% of the $1,280,682 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahall’s campaign committee and PAC. During the 1998 election cycle, transportation and infrastructure industries accounted for 21% of the $534,405 in total contributions received by Rep. Rahall’s campaign committee.

Campaign Contribution highlights from industries regulated by the Committee 57  The ‘Sea Transport’ industry donated nearly 13 times more money to Rep. Rahall during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $1,500 to $19,000.

CREW reviewed the online editions of the Congressional Directory from the U.S. Government Printing Offices available from the 105th Congress (1997-1998) through the 111th Congress (2009-2010). Therefore, the Congress member has been a member of the committee since at least 1997 and possibly earlier. 56 Full campaign contribution data is not yet available for the 2012 election cycle, the first election cycle after Rep. Rahall assumed a leadership position in the committee. 57 This section highlights committee industries that significantly increased their donations to the committee leader between the 1998 and 2010 election cycles.

55

51

The ‘Railroads’ industry donated nearly eight times more money to Rep. Rahall during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $6,500 to $49,500. The ‘Air Transport’ industry donated more than two times more money to Rep. Rahall during the 2010 election cycle than during the 1998 election cycle, increasing its contributions from $18,000 to $46,500.

Votes on Transportation and Infrastructure Issues  From 2007-2008, Rep. Rahall voted on average 79% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industry 79% of the time. From 2009-2010, Rep. Rahall voted on average 62% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Democrat voted in agreement with the industry 59% of the time. Since January 2011, Rep. Rahall has voted on average 47% in agreement with the industries regulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The average Democrat has voted in agreement with the industry 35% of the time.

52

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Contributions 1998-2010
$1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Rep. Mica Industry Rep. Rahall Industry Rep. Mica Total Rep. Rahall Total

110th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

John Mica (R-FL) Member Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

111th Congress Votes in Agreement with Industry

John Mica (R-FL) Member Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Party Member

53

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd